Literature DB >> 29059581

Direct PCR amplification of forensic touch and other challenging DNA samples: A review.

Sarah E Cavanaugh1, Abigail S Bathrick2.   

Abstract

DNA evidence sample processing typically involves DNA extraction, quantification, and STR amplification; however, DNA loss can occur at both the DNA extraction and quantification steps, which is not ideal for forensic evidence containing low levels of DNA. Direct PCR amplification of forensic unknown samples has been suggested as a means to circumvent extraction and quantification, thereby retaining the DNA typically lost during those procedures. Direct PCR amplification is a method in which a sample is added directly to an amplification reaction without being subjected to prior DNA extraction, purification, or quantification. It allows for maximum quantities of DNA to be targeted, minimizes opportunities for error and contamination, and reduces the time and monetary resources required to process samples, although data analysis may take longer as the increased DNA detection sensitivity of direct PCR may lead to more instances of complex mixtures. ISO 17025 accredited laboratories have successfully implemented direct PCR for limited purposes (e.g., high-throughput databanking analysis), and recent studies indicate that direct PCR can be an effective method for processing low-yield evidence samples. Despite its benefits, direct PCR has yet to be widely implemented across laboratories for the processing of evidentiary items. While forensic DNA laboratories are always interested in new methods that will maximize the quantity and quality of genetic information obtained from evidentiary items, there is often a lag between the advent of useful methodologies and their integration into laboratories. Delayed implementation of direct PCR of evidentiary items can be attributed to a variety of factors, including regulatory guidelines that prevent laboratories from omitting the quantification step when processing forensic unknown samples, as is the case in the United States, and, more broadly, a reluctance to validate a technique that is not widely used for evidence samples. The advantages of direct PCR of forensic evidentiary samples justify a re-examination of the factors that have delayed widespread implementation of this method and of the evidence supporting its use. In this review, the current and potential future uses of direct PCR in forensic DNA laboratories are summarized.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biological evidence; DNA typing; Direct PCR; Forensic identification; STR profile; Touch DNA

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29059581     DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet        ISSN: 1872-4973            Impact factor:   4.882


  13 in total

1.  Rapid and Reliable One-Step ABO Genotyping Using Direct Real-Time Allele-Specific PCR and Melting Curve Analysis Without DNA Preparation.

Authors:  Jun-Hee Park; Ji-Hye Han; Geon Park
Journal:  Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus       Date:  2018-12-18       Impact factor: 0.900

2.  Rapid Detection of MCR-Mediated Colistin Resistance in Escherichia coli.

Authors:  Haijie Zhang; Feiyu Yu; Xiaoyu Lu; Yan Li; Daxin Peng; Zhiqiang Wang; Yuan Liu
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2022-05-26

3.  Detection and analysis of the cause of false-tetra-allelic patterns of locus D10S1435 at the sequence level.

Authors:  Yongsong Zhou; Qiong Lan; Yating Fang; Yuxin Guo; Tong Xie; Weian Du; Bofeng Zhu
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.686

Review 4.  PCR inhibition in qPCR, dPCR and MPS-mechanisms and solutions.

Authors:  Maja Sidstedt; Peter Rådström; Johannes Hedman
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 4.142

5.  Rapid One-Pot Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Based on a Lateral Flow Assay in Clinical Samples.

Authors:  Chao Zhang; Tingting Zheng; Hua Wang; Wei Chen; Xiaoye Huang; Jianqi Liang; Liping Qiu; Da Han; Weihong Tan
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 6.986

6.  Rapid and Accurate Antibiotic Susceptibility Determination of tet(X)-Positive E. coli Using RNA Biomarkers.

Authors:  Haijie Zhang; Yan Li; Yongjia Jiang; Xiaoyu Lu; Ruichao Li; Daxin Peng; Zhiqiang Wang; Yuan Liu
Journal:  Microbiol Spectr       Date:  2021-10-27

7.  Genotyping of Multiple Clinical Samples with a Combined Direct PCR and Magnetic Lateral Flow Assay.

Authors:  Chao Zhang; Xiaonan Liu; Yao Yao; Kewu Liu; Wenli Hui; Juanli Zhu; Yaling Dou; Kai Hua; Mingli Peng; Zuankai Wang; Alphonsus J M Vermorken; Yali Cui
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2018-09-08

8.  Touch DNA in forensic science: The use of laboratory-created eccrine fingerprints to quantify DNA loss.

Authors:  Jessica Tang; Jennifer Ostrander; Ray Wickenheiser; Ashley Hall
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 2.395

9.  Rapid Detection of High-Level Tigecycline Resistance in Tet(X)-Producing Escherichia coli and Acinetobacter spp. Based on MALDI-TOF MS.

Authors:  Ze-Hua Cui; Zi-Jian Zheng; Tian Tang; Zi-Xing Zhong; Chao-Yue Cui; Xin-Lei Lian; Liang-Xing Fang; Qian He; Xi-Ran Wang; Chong Chen; Bing He; Min-Ge Wang; Ya-Hong Liu; Xiao-Ping Liao; Jian Sun
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 5.293

10.  Multiplex and visual detection of African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV) based on Hive-Chip and direct loop-mediated isothermal amplification.

Authors:  Yuan-Shou Zhu; Ning Shao; Jian-Wei Chen; Wen-Bao Qi; Yang Li; Peng Liu; Yan-Jing Chen; Su-Ying Bian; Yan Zhang; Sheng-Ce Tao
Journal:  Anal Chim Acta       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 6.558

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.